Pres. Obama and His Iranian Deal

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 9 years ago

   Probably a tough discussion to have, since the exact details can't be confirmed, but here are a few "understood" parts.
   
   1. "The deal" would have a limited life. Current gossip has it as a 10-year deal.
   2. The general consensus of the political insider gossip is that Iran will get sanctions lifted and the world will get a "promise" not to expand enrichment capabilities.
   
   Authority/approval/process:
   
   1. It appears that many think the Senate has the power to quash any deal they don't like, but... several authoritative voices are saying Pres. Obama has the authority to use "executive temporary suspension" of sanctions to make any deal he makes binding. (at least while he is in office)
   
   2. I believe that Pres. Obama has an endgame in mind that does not require Senatorial approval to ink an Iranian deal.
   
   So... what say you?
   
   Doesn't a "limited term" give Iran a free hand after a "probationary" period. Doesn't it hamstring future administration's authority to prevent a nuclear Iran?
   
   Even though our president does have, (and should have), the authority to conduct foreign policy; actions, treaties, agreements, etc., shouldn't he be constrained by the will of the people, (ie. Congress)?
   
   Proponents of a deal say it is the only alternative to war. Opponents say it is giving in because it gets the sanctions lifted while only requiring Iran to "wait awhile" before proceeding full steam ahead with their nuclear ambitions.
   
   I don't want war. I think the sanctions are working. (or Iran would not even be at the table)
   I don't like the fact that I think Pres. Obama will be able to ink a deal using executive powers opposing the will of Congress, (well, the will of the Senate anyway)
   I think we are being sold a "bill of goods" by the Obama administration.
   
   Am I wrong?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 61

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Details of the deal escape me now, but I do remember having thought that there was little if any consideration for the welfare of the citizens of the United States of America (which should be a POTUS first priority) and more concern about his legacy. However, he is within his right to make the deal through executive action?
      
      That begs another question which Americans need to consider. The POTUS may have this right but do they want legislation passed all the time this way?
      
      Do they want a different form of government, a return to their having NO SAY and a dictatorial king? Since Congress and the Senate seem to be disposable, why have them at all and while we're at it, why have a constitution and since we don't have a constitution, let's get rid of the laws that we have and the rights that those laws guarantee and return to barbaric Atillas and serfdom?

      replyreport
      1. 69

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "Do they want a different form of government, a return to their having NO SAY and a dictatorial king"
         
         Good question. Do we really have control of this government? With recent elections where 14% to 16% of Americans favorably considered Congress, 93% of them were re-elected. How is this any control of the messy slime on the Hill? With this much corruption how could we possibly find a person worthy of the Presidency?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly. Government belongs to corporate interests (domestic and foreign) and has for some time.

            replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Oh my, do I detect a bit of angst-generated sarcasm here?
         
         I don't think Pres. Obama has ill-intentions. And whether a part of his motivation is his legacy... well, why is that a problem if his primary motivation is that he believes he is doing what is right?
         *Note that I am not saying his motivations are pure - because I just don't know, and neither do any of the "legacy-believers" hawking their views of the president.
         
         I just disagree with what "appears" to be happening, and I don't like the thought that something as important as this can be accomplished via Executive Order."
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            GA, whether this particular issue that has been around for a quarter century rises to the level of importance where the GOP says an executive order is inappropriate is debatable. 95 percent of these treaties have been consummated by executive agreement in the last 75 years  I wonder how many of that 95 percent could have involved an issue of dire importance?  The GOP hand at userping  the President's perogative is  partisan nonsense disguised as legitimate concern. Every President wants to leave a legacy of sorts, why is that not expected of the current occupant? These negotiations are time sensitive, and I believe that the President should at least have the opportunity to conclude negotiations toward the end of the month before Cottonmouth and company butts in.
            
            I have been hearing signs of regret from members of the GOP lately regarding the prudence of this letter to Iran. I will bet you that this entire sordid affair will have an adverse effect of netanyahu's Reelection plans.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I think the letter was a bad move that is mostly seen for what it is - a partisan political stunt, and that the signers were wrong for doing it.
               
               I agree with your points.
               
               But... something about this specific instance of presidential foreign policy authority doesn't feel right. Maybe it is the potential lethal consequences if it doesn't stop Iran's enrichment efforts, but mostly for me it is a trust issue. Pres. Obama, in my view, does not have a foreign policy track record that earns him my benefit of the doubt. Plus, I have a less than positive opinion of Kerry's abilities.
               
               As you noted, recent Israeli reports/polls seem to indicate Netanyahu might have been better off passing on the speech offer.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   2. 85

      oceansnsunsetsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that Americans are being sold a bill of goods.  I have accepted that Americans fell for this several years ago, though they were warned and those that did the warning were called crazy.  The problem is that I think many are waking up, but maybe that is just me hoping.  I can't really "forgive" the ongoing allowing ourselves to be sold a bill of goods.  Your second point is one that people are starting to talk about more.  Its kind of scary, and more ought to think on it.  I applaud you for encouraging the thinking about all of these things. 
      
      Americans don't get some exemption from having cause and effect logically playing out in our lives, or our existence.  I don't believe there is any thing that warrants the thinking of forcing through bad ideas, yet expecting good results to follow.  No.  Rather, bad ideas reap bad results, good ideas reap good results.  Period.  This is logic, pure and simple, and to those that believe that going up against logic and goodness and truth, yet expecting GOOD to come from it.....well, they will lose every time.  Unless if for a time, there is something corrupt in charge that lets you get a free pass or some benefit.  For a time.  Americans need to wake up, stop wanting their ears tickled, and give logic the respect it deserves.  Of course they don't HAVE to, but then they get what comes with that.  So this is a curious time we are living in.   The sad part is, that those that vehemently disagree and would never allow it, will also be punished the same as if they had.  Sometimes in life, our own bad or good decisions affect us only personally.  In this case however, the whole country is hurt.   Its not fair, but the truths shown in the mean time, and those that tried to stop it, will always remain advocates for the good and for truth, as I see it.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Hi OS
         Well, We vote. We talk. We think and We philosophize.
         We talk on the internet to who knows who. But really what else do/can We do?
         We don't have/take power in our neighborhoods. We don't have/take power in our towns, cities or states. We don't have/take/feel power in our country.  It starts with the individual, but the individual is held down, no matter what color, in SO MANY WAYS, (beginning with the school SYSTEM) here in this land of the
         
         
                                                                  F R E E ! ? ?!
         
         Also, it seems, today, if one person wants to stand for something good/ true/ real he becomes one pin to be bowled down by so many balls.
         TWISI

         replyreport